RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section

[Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and all,
Of course! Here goes, see attached, a consolidated version, both redline and 
clean (the markup version suffers a bit from concatenated changes, so I 
recommend proof-reading the clean one).
Best regards (and have a nice weekend!)

Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: den 14 mars 2008 14:24
To: Thomas Keller; Olof Nordling; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section

Thanks Tom.

Olof - can you make the change in your document and then add your document to 
mine to create a new version for discussion on the list?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 4:39 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Olof Nordling'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section

Hi Chuck,

I'm fine with the proposed language.

Best,

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. März 2008 20:45
An: Olof Nordling; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section

The changes Olof made look good to me.  In addition I support Tom's suggestion 
for beefing up the notes for deleting the second part of issue 15.  I believe 
that Tom was referring to the work of the original IRTP task force; if I am 
correct, then I took a crack at beefing it up as shown in the attached file.

Tom - Does what I did beef it up as you suggested?  Is it accurate?

All - Please comment as well.

Thanks,

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:55 PM
> To: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-trans-wg] "Beefed up" deletes section
>
> Dear all,
> Attached is my attempt to "beef up" our deletes section, with changes
> shown as mark-up. I have essentially elaborated a little on our
> reasoning without stretching the substance much further. Enough? Too
> much? Too little? Foot faults? - Well, please comment.
>
> Best regards
>
> Olof
>
> PS. As to "CT", my preliminary finding is that it is indeed a misprint
> for "Consensus Ranking", which is the term used for these values in
> Ross' group's final document to the Council.
> I'm inclined to suggest replacing "CT" by "Consensus Ranking", spelled
> out.
>
>

Attachment: Transfer WG Recommendations for PDP Groupings - 14 Mar 08 Draft markup.doc
Description: Transfer WG Recommendations for PDP Groupings - 14 Mar 08 Draft markup.doc

Attachment: Transfer WG Recommendations for PDP Groupings - 14 Mar 08 Draft clean.doc
Description: Transfer WG Recommendations for PDP Groupings - 14 Mar 08 Draft clean.doc